On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> wrote:
1. Experimentation and learning curve take time. That's a real cost that's being imposed.
What makes systemd different from any other technology in that respect?
It's not clear that the benefits outweigh the costs of the status quo.
Ultimately this is a very personal decision, but given the adoption rate of systemd by distributions I don't think that it's going to be that long before people (at least if you want to be employed managing Linux systems) don't have a choice but to become at least passably familiar with systemd. Even if Debian steps back from systemd, Canonical and Red Hat have committed to systemd.
2. Assumes good documentation. Not a given with systemd, as it stands now.
Why does everyone assume that systemd doesn't have good documentation? I personally have found the documentation to be excellent.
3. Assumes that problems are easy to track down. Harder to do with murky and monolithic code.
Statements that are equally valid for sysvinit.
(I still shudder the first time udev did something completely counter-intuitive at 0-dark-30, and that's from the same cast of characters.
Udev predates systemd, by a long long time. If you have problems with udev don't blame systemd.
4. More fundamentally, 0-dark-30 events are almost always unexpected (other than in the sense of Murphy's Law), and tricky to resolve - one has hopefully prepared for the expected. Hence, it's not completely clear that one CAN familiarize oneself in a meaningful way - particularly when talking about something as monolithic as systemd. That's one of the major reasons for keeping things modular, and keeping modules simple.
This really has nothing to do with systemd. I believe that systemd has made things better in this respect, but you're welcome to believe that the pile of shell scripts in /etc/init.d is better. <sarcasm>I mean really, what could go wrong when we configure boot-up with a Turing complete language?</sarcasm> Really... I know of several instances a poorly-written init script caused boot-up to fail because they had infinite loops in them. -- Jeff Ollie